Note:

 Ralph Dumain, 6 November 2017

These online and offline sources are relevant to the analysis, interpretation,
reception, and placement in intellectual history particularly of Dostoevskys
Notes from Underground (1864) and of his world view generally.

Frank offers an exceptionally insightful analysis of the novel.

Trotsky offers a trenchant analysis of the impoverished intellectual heritage
of the Russian intelligentsia, criticizing revolutionary as well as reactionary
authors.

Bloshteyn (2007) treats the history of reception of Dostoevsky in Russia, the
USA, the UK, and France, as prelude to her study of Dostoevskys appropriation
by Miller, Nin, and Durrell, who bypassed Dostoevskys reactionary views,
adopting him to their own irrationalist agenda.

Bloshteyn (2001) is the invaluable source for tracing the distinctive appropriation
of Dostoevsky by African-American writers, especially Richard Wright, also Ellison
and Baldwin.

Ellison and Lynch cover Ellisons and Wrights engagement with Dostoevsky.

Peterson details Wrights affinity to Gorky, both having had parallel
life stories, then Wrights divergence from Gorkys collectivism.

Bloshteyn (also 2001) focuses on the Beat writersadoption of Dostoevsky,
also overlooking his reactionary views alien to them, following Miller.

Goldfarb and Cherkasova compare the apparently antagonistic philosophical orientations
of Kant and Dostoevsky.

Bakhtin argues that Dostoevky is the author of the first polyphonic novel.

Scanlan analyzes the many voices found in Dostoevsky and pins down his actual
viewpoint.

Carroll analyzes the opposition to Nikolay Chernyshevskys scientistic
utopian crystal palace propounded in What Is to Be Done?,
from a regrettable anarchist viewpoint but in detail.

Jacoby does not mention Dostoevsky at all, but his book is predicated on unearthing
a tradition both of dissident Marxists and reactionary thinkers who analyzed
modernitys underbelly obscured by the scientistic orientation of orthodox
Marxism.